For starters - I live in the Midwest and we aren't required to carry any bear containers. So I don'tcare about Ursack being approved or not approved.
a) Ursack - lighter & flexible in the pack & cheaper. b) Lighter1 - protects food better, lid can be used as a cook pot and as deep frying pan, and one can use it as a camp chair.
I'm leaning to Lighter1, but I wanted Ursack for quite sometime in the past (and I don't need a new pot, nor a camp chair - plenty of trees here in Wisconsin)...
#194308 - 03/17/1611:44 AMRe: Ursack or Lighter1?
[Re: BrRabbit]
BZH
member
Registered: 01/26/11
Posts: 1189
Loc: Madison, AL
First: I grew up in the UP and never use a bear can there. Even in the Porcupine Mountains where bears get about as thick as anywhere in the Midwest.
Second: Now that I live CA, many of the places I go require bear containers.
I currently own a Lighter1. I really wanted an Ursack for quite some time, but the more I've looked into it, the less of a good idea I think they are. Even if Ursack works as advertise (I've seen quite a few reports of failure) in the end your food is going to be ruined. Additionally, with a bear gnawing and gumming the bag and your food it is not clear the bear will not receive a food award for his trouble. In the end, that is what you are trying to do: prevent bears from associating people with food.
#194309 - 03/17/1612:03 PMRe: Ursack or Lighter1?
[Re: BZH]
BZH
member
Registered: 01/26/11
Posts: 1189
Loc: Madison, AL
For the Lighter1:
I did ask Lighter1 about using their pan as a fry pan, but they never replied. It is possible you will warp the pan using it this way, but it doesn't seem like a huge risk to me since the pan is made out of fairly metal. Other issues are the steep side might make it difficult to use a spatula and sticking/cleaning since it is nonstick. I did plan to try mine as a frying pan, but the recent trips I have been on haven't lent themselves to that.
The Lil Sammi is a real nice size for a weekend trip and a much better form factor than the BearVault. I think the way they report weights on there website is a bit deceptive. Even at its actual weights it is a pretty good bear cannister.
Here the stats for my Lil Sammi:
canister = 20.85 oz cap/pot = 6.40 oz handle = 0.90 oz
#194314 - 03/17/1604:07 PMRe: Ursack or Lighter1?
[Re: BZH]
OregonMouse
member
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
The older Ursacks did have their problems. The newer S29 version that was approved last year certainly stood up to extra grizzly bear testing (it was even left in the pen with the "testers" for an extra hour). Of course, despite being approved by the Grizzly Bear people, it has not been approved by the national parks in the Sierra and probably never will be. It's thus moot for those who backpack in the Sierra. IMHO, Sierra bears are definitely smarter than your average bear! But I'd certainly take it instead of my Bearikade (which is NOT IGBC approved, although it is approved for the Sierra) to grizzly bear country.
I bought an S29 last fall (with a 20% off coupon from REI), and it's definitely stouter than the old ones.
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
I normally just leave my food in a plastic bag just by the fire for a night, and never had a problem so far. Generally I do not think it's the brightest idea though, besides I am appreciating the ease of leaving the plastic can and being sure no critters (mice too) will steal the food from me.
On one hand, I don't want to add 2 pounds to my weight. On another - if I could eliminate my pot (replace it with the lid), and could use the canister itself as a chair...
The Ursack, on the other hand, is not adding any weight to my pack, but it's not really giving me that nice hard shell of convenience.
Registered: 02/26/07
Posts: 1149
Loc: Washington State, King County
What in specific are you trying to protect your food from? I.e., are bears a significant issue, or is it more about rodents, racoons, crows, that sort of thing?
If not bears, then consider either the Ratsack or the Ursack Minor.
I have an older type Ursack Minor --- the newer one is listed at a higher weight than mine, so perhaps is tougher --- but FWIW I've had no issues with anything getting into the older one either. In addition to being lighter weight than a standard Ursack it's also more flexible material, a little easier to work with and just collapse to pretty low volume when not used (a standard Ursack only collapses so much).
For most people owning both a bear-proof AND a lighter rodent-proof container would be overkill. In my case, add on some hard sided canisters too and it gets a little silly --- but nice sometimes to be able to pick the best tool for the job as well.
Well, I don't like to share my food with no one, unless he shares his booze with me first. Bears and mice, they don't have no booze, so I don't like to share my food with them in particular.
So yes, there's bear presence in Northern Wisconsin woods, black bears, not grizzlies.
Are you implying that there are no trees where you backpack? Proper hanging works well if you have trees. My hanging system is a 50-foot length of parachute cord, one mini-biner, and I have sewn a small rip-stop bag with tabs to put a rock inside. I have never been very successful at tying a rock on the end of my cord that stays put for the numerous times it takes me to throw the line over a limb. I counter-balance and have a little hook on my trekking pole that helps me get it down. I consider my bear hanging cord as extra cord too. I cut some off if I need it for extra tent string, etc. I have also used the hanging cord to lower or raise my pack if I have to climb over short cliffs. Having extra cord is actually very handy.
The Ursack does weigh something - about 8 oz. The hanging gear weighs about 4-5 oz. My Bearikade weighs 1 lb 15 oz - effectively one and a half pounds when you consider I do not have to bring a food bag, hanging gear etc. A more difficult consideration with the bear can is carrying it. You just cannot get the weight distributed very well and it is stiff and hard. And it just does not fit well in a smaller pack. It is also expensive enough that I cannot afford to have multiple sizes so have only the Weekender. For all its faults, I tend to go with the bear can more often, even when not required, because it is just easier to use.
I like that idea of a bag with a tab to put the rock in for a hang! Also the hook on the trekking pole: I guess that would get me a total of about 10 ft reach off the ground, enough to grab a hanging loop off a bag. My problem for a few years now is that I have had a rotator cuff problem and have had trouble throwing rocks, so the cannister became easier for me, despite the weight. However, I just had shoulder surgery, so maybe I'll be hanging more. Counterbalancing does seem the proper way to go, but it's tricky...and I always worry I'll get my food stuck up there and not be able to get it down. I had a few close calls there. It's definitely one of those skills that is good to practice in advance, rather than try it out at the end of a long, exhausting day of backpacking I have thought about tying a little "tail" of floss or thread to hang down from one of the counter-balanced bags, with the theory being that a bear wouldn't be so able to grasp it, but I don't know how well it would work.
I have thought about tying a little "tail" of floss or thread to hang down from one of the counter-balanced bags, with the theory being that a bear wouldn't be so able to grasp it, but I don't know how well it would work. [/quote]
Teaching bears how to floss, your dentist must have trained you well.
Are you implying that there are no trees where you backpack?
...
For all its faults, I tend to go with the bear can more often, even when not required, because it is just easier to use.
Same here. I own a BV500 and know what to expect from a canister. And I am too lazy to do proper bear hang sufficient to prevent my bag from a real bear encounter.
I really split in this decision process. One day - I want Lighter1 (for its pot/frying pan mostly!), another - I tell myself I already have a nice pot and don't need new one and weight savings are quite tangible.
I am trying to get input from Lighter1 users - are they happy with their purchase or not... Because all Ursack users are very happy with theirs.
#194423 - 03/21/1611:58 PMRe: Ursack or Lighter1?
[Re: BrRabbit]
OregonMouse
member
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
Of course, the Ursack doesn't have a frying pan!
I don't know anything about the Lighter 1 frying pan, but if I'm going to fry food while out in the wilds, I want a high quality fry pan specificlly made for cooking!
The bear canister's advantage is that it makes a great seat!
Edited by OregonMouse (03/22/1612:00 AM)
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
I googled a few videos from a guy who loves cooking in Lighter1 pan, both using it as a pot and as a frying pan. He seemed to be very excited about it - whole 10 (+/-, i did not count) videos with different recipes.
I nearly convinced myself to buy the Ursack. It's obvious - cheaper, lighter, bigger... Then I thought to myself, but I could use Lighter1 also as a table, or as a stand for my alcohol stove under my tarp if it rains and ground is soaked...
Another round of comparing them, analysis paralysis.
I have been a happy Ursack owner for a few years, and I doubt I will ever use a hard-sided cannister again. The lower weight and convenience of packing a bag vs cannister have me won over.
As far as reliability goes, the latest generation of Ursack bags are proven bear-resistant and certified by the IGBC, and there is actually growing evidence that these bags are actually more "bear-proof" than hard-sided canisters (see reports coming out of places like Yosemite where bears have broken dozens of canisters).
Some people still express their doubts about using the Ursack bag, but I would encourage people to ask advice from people who have actually used/owned both - in my circle of friends, I don't know a single person that favours carrying a cannister anymore.
#194566 - 03/27/1604:47 PMRe: Ursack or Lighter1?
[Re: DH024]
OregonMouse
member
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
Depends on where you backpack. In the Sierra national parks, Olympic National Park, and some other jurisdictions, the Ursack is not allowed--hardsided canisters are required.
And remember that it's only the very recent Ursack S29 white model that is approved by the IGBC--the older versions (like my two from 2006) are definitely not approved anywhere and have a history of bears getting into them.
Edited by OregonMouse (03/27/1608:16 PM)
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
The OP was very clear that they are comparing the new Ursack based on its merits alone, not prescriptive requirements of certain jurisdictions. And I was very clear that I am speaking about the latest generation of Ursack bags.
#194568 - 03/27/1608:15 PMRe: Ursack or Lighter1?
[Re: DH024]
OregonMouse
member
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
My point is that there are still many places where the Ursack--even the model on the IGBC list--is illegal. It seems that each jurisdiction--National Park or National Forest--gets to decide what is legal and what isn't. None are required to follow the IGBC list. In the national parks of the Sierra Nevada, for instance, using an Ursack will not only get you a hefty fine but an escort out of the park. Using one in Olympic National Park, except in an site where there are still bear wires and you hang it like a regular bag, will also get you a fine. Unless the website for the specific park or forest states that your bear container must be on the IGBC approved list, it's best to call when planning a trip!
It's only two years that Ursack has been producing the IGBC approved model (April 2014 per the Ursack website). I keep running into people who think the older models are OK. That's why your mention of a "few years" triggered my comment.
Edited by OregonMouse (03/27/1608:29 PM)
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
#194574 - 03/27/1611:02 PMRe: Ursack or Lighter1?
[Re: OregonMouse]
ndsol
member
Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 678
Loc: Houston, Texas
It's rather incongruous that the Ursack S29.3 is approved in North Cascades NP while just across the Salish Sea it is banned for use in Olympic NP.
Here is what Ursack posted on March 22nd:
Quote:
We have been promised, since November 2015, that a letter was coming from the Solicitor’s (Department of Interior lawyer) office concerning Ursack’s approval in Yosemite and three parts of Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Parks. Four months later, we are still waiting. We actually began seeking approval in October 2014 after we received IGBC certification. Apparently, some people in government think that confirming the approval of a bear bag in an election year is inappropriate. One official stated: “It is about a principle, not a specific product like Ursack.”
Government bureaucracy at its finest in almost a 1-1/2 year process to date.
#194575 - 03/27/1611:25 PMRe: Ursack or Lighter1?
[Re: ndsol]
OregonMouse
member
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
It is a weird situation! The Sierra national parks seem to be dead set against the Ursack and have been for years. Of course their bears are smarter than the average… I haven't been anywhere else where bears rip cars apart when food is stored in them.
Olympic NP is a somewhat different situation. I talked to the head wilderness ranger five years ago. He claimed that Ursack (of course that's the older models) won't hold up either to pawing mountain goats or to the guerrilla raccoons on the coast. Also, ONP has no grizzly bears or (so far) any possibility of any, so they don't pay attention to the IGBC.
Another interesting thing I found out is that Grand Teton National Park requires IGBC-approved containers (remember that the Bearikade is not IGBC-approved). On the other hand, Yellowstone doesn't allow any canisters. You have to camp at an established site where bear-hanging cables are provided. Since the two parks are adjacent, this seems to be the height of weirdness. Or is it Yellowstone's hot water that makes the difference?
One issue some officials have with the Ursack is that it is more subject to user error than canisters because the user needs to tie knots just so. Officials where there are lots of green folks out backpacking for the first time are obviously not happy about user error issues.
Edited by OregonMouse (03/28/1611:41 AM) Edit Reason: Finish incomplete sentence in next to last paragraph
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!